We received a brief press release today with a promise of more information to follow:

On Thursday, January 31st, Anderson Cooper will host a
town hall from George
Washington University
on the topic of gun control with today’s leading voices on this hot button
topic. Guests and additional details to follow.

Anderson Cooper 360° Town Hall: Guns Under Fire will air at 8pm ET
(Thursday) on CNN.

7 comments:

Anonymous
said...

360 was okay; to be perfectly honest I didn't pay much attention to some segments.

A shift in GOP policy on immigration was a good topic. However, it was the same time as a discussion with my DH about the Japanese 'Battle Royale'. I was pleased to see the panel didn't consist of any WASPy Ari Fleischer type white men. Personally, I believe any change in the GOP about immigration will be slow and difficult because they don't have all of its members on board with this.

The report on the nightclub fire in Brazil was excellent. Anderson and the reporters Darlington and Guttman in Brazil all did a great job.

Here's a "YAY" for the mom who got out of the polygamy sect with her kids but overall I wasn't much interested in this topic.

The Shot came back after a long absence, which was terrific but I swear I've seen that Shot months before.

The best part about the Ridiculist were the two lab mice - one normal, one given PHC. That mouse was so laid back and relaxed, or, in the words of the narrator, "This mouse is definitely high."

Anderson and his town hall meeting on gun control certainly sounds like a good idea. It would sound like a great idea if not for the fact that Piers Morgan did the exact same thing two weeks ago. I really don't want to think Anderson is copying Morgan so I'll concentrate instead on how it's a change of pace for Anderson and sounds very Phil Donahue.

Isn't it a bit late for Anderson to copy Phil Donahue and go back to serious news?Glad to see that Jeff Zucker is really shaking things up a bit on CNN and is actually making some changes.Is Chris Cuomo the answer.Probably not. Again building the brand around one personality and if that personality fails, what then?What is interesting is that he does have DIFFERENT favorites. New boss, new favs and we shall see where some people land.One things for certain, according to the NYPost, he doesn't like low ratings, from anyone, and he's not taking it, either.

@Anon 9:33 - Cuomo was hired for the morning program - to replace Soledad. Didn't see any mention of Cuomo being hired to be the "face" of CNN. If Zucker is replacing people solely on ratings - then Anderson is safe unless Wolf, Erin & Piers all go, too.

I liked the moves that were announced today and look forward to see what changes get made across the network. As far as I'm concerned change can be good or bad, but to pre-judge is wrong. Give things a chance to work and then make changes if they don't.

Also, not sure The NY Post is the know all, be all, when it comes to Zucker and CNN.

Finally watched Monday night's AC360. I was shocked that Anderson did a KTH segment on John McCain. He pretty much seems to give McCain a platform on AC360 to spout his opinion/hate toward the current administration. Hope we see more of this. I only wish Anderson/AC360 would point out the hypocrisy of the Republican posturing and McCain's vendetta over the Benghazi hearings. There were several attacks on U.S. Embassies and Consulates during the Bush administration with more than 4 people killed on each occurrence and I certainly don't remember the hearings and posturing and bitching about those at the time.

If Zucker doesn't like low ratings Anderson has nothing to worry about. I also don't see how he is building a brand around Cuomo. As of now CNN only has one "brand" face and that is Anderson.

Anyway, I'm not too optimistic regarding Zucker. He's accumulated quite an impressive list of failures and bad decision making. And because of that I don't think even Anderson is safe. Zucker definitely didn't mind axing the top rated shows/hosts at the other channels he worked for with that turning out to be a very bad idea. I am actually worried about Zucker ruining CNN. CNN International is doing well, I think CNN's content is respectable (unlike the right- and left fundie alternatives) and they are making profit. Ratings are not everything and even if Zucker might manage to make an improvement there it might very well be at the cost of even more quality.

Mind you, I think in recent years the quality has already dropped, probably because the producers thought they had to cater at least a little bit to the audience that would usually watch crap like MSNBC and Faux News, but Zucker is not exactely known for classy quality TV. I don't want CNN be taken over by the Piers Morgans' of the journalist world. :(

I don't know, couldn't they bring in someone from the BBC or something? Someone who provides the no doubt excellent crop of journalists CNN has available with quality assignments that make use of their full potential? I mean when I look at some of the classic CNN stuff with Anderson, it's often absolutely riveting. And the name Zucker I don't really associate with riveting high-quality journalism.

Oh well, maybe I'm too pessimistic. Lets see what he will do. I hope Anderson has something up his sleeve though in case Zucker screws things up yet again. I am sure CBS would gladly hire him full-time. ^_^

"If he doesn't like low ratings Anderson doesn't have anything to worry about!"YES HE DOES.Have any of you ever looked at his ratings compared to Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell on TVN!PLEASE.Wake Up.Why do you think Zucker is knocking out a slot...to serve AC tea and biscuits!And as far as CBS is concerned, look what happened to Erica.And Scott Paley...spelled wrong, is the new 'it person' on 60 Minutes and CBS. His interviews show it.

"and the name Zucker I don't associate with high quality journalism." You don't?The name Zucker happens to be a Judaic-Christian name.Jeff Zucker is a high caliber producer who is associated with such personalities as Katie Couric.I do not know how anyone can tell anything by a NAME and to say the above phrase is demeaning.If you don't know something or someone it is best left unsaid.It is bias, and shows prejudice on your part.